The study of the recognition or lack of recognition of cancer cells by a host organism has proceeded in many different directions. Understanding of the field presumes some understanding of both basic immunology and oncology.
Early research on mouse tumors revealed that these displayed molecules which led to rejection of tumor cells when transplanted into syngeneic animals. These molecules are “recognized” by T-cells in the recipient animal, and provoke a cytolytic T-cell response with lysis of the transplanted cells. This evidence was first obtained with tumors induced in vitro by chemical carcinogens, such as methylcholanthrene. The antigens expressed by the tumors and which elicited the T-cell response were found to be different for each tumor. See Prehn, et al., J. Natl. Canc. Inst. 18: 769-778 (1957); Klein et al., Cancer Res. 20: 1561-1572 (1960); Gross, Cancer Res. 3: 326-333 (1943), Basombrio, Cancer Res. 30: 2458-2462 (1970) for general teachings on inducing tumors with chemical carcinogens and differences in cell surface antigens. This class of antigens has come to be known as “tumor specific transplantation antigens” or “TSTAs”. Following the observation of the presentation of such antigens when induced by chemical carcinogens, similar results were obtained when tumors were induced in vitro via ultraviolet radiation. See Kripke, J. Natl. Canc. Inst. 53: 333-1336 (1974).
While T-cell mediated immune responses were observed for the types of tumor described supra, spontaneous tumors were thought to be generally non-immunogenic. These were therefore believed not to present antigens which provoked a response to the tumor in the tumor carrying subject. See Hewitt, et al., Brit. J. Cancer 33: 241-259 (1976).
The family of tumor antigen presenting cell lines are immunogenic variants obtained by mutagenesis of mouse tumor cells or cell lines, as described by Boon et al., J. Exp. Med. 152: 1184-1193 (1980), the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. To elaborate, tum− antigens are obtained by mutating tumor cells which do not generate an immune response in syngeneic mice and will form tumors (i.e., “tum+” cells). When these tum+ cells are mutagenized, they are rejected by syngeneic mice, and fail to form tumors (thus “tum−”). See Boon et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74: 272 (1977), the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Many tumor types have been shown to exhibit this phenomenon. See, e.g., Frost et al., Cancer Res. 43: 125 (1983).
It appears that tum− variants fail to form progressive tumors because they elicit an immune rejection process. The evidence in favor of this hypothesis includes the ability of “tum−” variants of tumors, i.e., those which do not normally form tumors, to do so in mice with immune systems suppressed by sublethal irradiation, Van Pel et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76: 5282-5285 (1979); and the observation that intraperitoneally injected tum− cells of mastocytoma P815 multiply exponentially for 12-15 days, and then are eliminated in only a few days in the midst of an influx of lymphocytes and macrophages (Uyttenhove et al., J. Exp. Med. 152: 1175-1183 (1980)). Further evidence includes the observation that mice acquire an immune memory which permits them to resist subsequent challenge to the same tum− variant, even when immunosuppressive amounts of radiation are administered with the following challenge of cells (Boon et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74: 272-275 (1977); Van Pel et al., supra; Uyttenhove et al., supra). Later research found that when spontaneous tumors were subjected to mutagenesis, immunogenic variants were produced which did generate a response. Indeed, these variants were able to elicit an immune protective response against the original tumor. See Van Pel et al., J. Exp. Med. 157: 1992-2001 (1983). Thus, it has been shown that it is possible to elicit presentation of a so-called “tumor rejection antigen” in a tumor which is a target for a syngeneic rejection response. Similar results have been obtained when foreign genes have been transfected into spontaneous tumors. See Fearson et al., Cancer Res. 48: 2975-1980 (1988) in this regard.
A class of antigens has been recognized which are presented on the surface of tumor cells and are recognized by cytotoxic T cells, leading to lysis. This class of antigens will be referred to as “tumor rejection antigens” or “TRAs” hereafter. TRAs may or may not elicit antibody responses. The extent to which these antigens have been studied, has been via cytolytic T cell characterization studies, in vitro i.e., the study of the identification of the antigen by a particular cytolytic T cell (“CTL” hereafter) subset. The subset proliferates upon recognition of the presented tumor rejection antigen, and the cells presenting the antigen are lysed. Characterization studies have identified CTL clones which specifically lyse cells expressing the antigens. Examples of this work may be found in Levy et al., Adv. Cancer Res. 24: 1-59 (1977); Boon et al., J. Exp. Med. 152: 1184-1193 (1980); Brunner et al., J. Immunol. 124: 1627-1634 (1980); Maryanski et al., Eur. J. Immunol. 124: 1627-1634 (1980); Maryanski et al., Eur. J. Immunol. 12: 406-412 (1982); Palladino et al., Canc. Res. 47: 5074-5079 (1987). This type of analysis is required for other types of antigens recognized by CTLs, including minor histocompatibility antigens, the male specific H-Y antigens, and a class of antigens, referred to as “tum−” antigens, and discussed herein.
A tumor exemplary of the subject matter described supra is known as P815. See DePlaen et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 2274-2278 (1988); Szikora et al., EMBO J. 9: 1041-1050 (1990), and Sibille et al., J. Exp. Med. 172: 35-45 (1990), the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference. The P815 tumor is a mastocytoma, induced in a DBA/2 mouse with methylcholanthrene and cultured as both an in vitro tumor and a cell line. The P815 line has generated many tumor variants following mutagenesis, including variants referred to as P91A (DePlaen, supra), 35B (Szikora, supra), and P198 (Sibille, supra). In contrast to tumor rejection antigens—and this is a key distinction—the tum− antigens are only present after the tumor cells are mutagenized. Tumor rejection antigens are present on cells of a given tumor without mutagenesis. Hence, with reference to the literature, a cell line can be tum+, such as the line referred to as “P1”, and can be provoked to produce tum−variants. Since the tum− phenotype differs from that of the parent cell line, one expects a difference in the DNA of tum− cell lines as compared to their tum+ parental lines, and this difference can be exploited to locate the gene of interest in tum− cells. As a result, it was found that genes of tum− variants such as P91A, 35B and P198 differ from their normal alleles by point mutations in the coding regions of the gene. See Szikora and Sibille, supra, and Lurquin et al., Cell 58: 293-303 (1989). This has proved not to be the case with the TRAs of this invention. These papers also demonstrated that peptides derived from the tum− antigen are presented by the Ld molecule for recognition by CTLs. P91A is presented by Ld, P35 by Dd and P198 by Kd.
Prior patent applications PCT/US92/04354, U.S. Ser. Nos. 807,043; 764,364; 728,838 and 707,702, all of which are incorporated by reference, describe inventions involving, inter alia, genes and other nucleic acid molecules which code for various TRAPs, which are in turn processed to tumor rejection antigen, or “TRAs”.
The genes are useful as a source for the isolated and purified tumor rejection antigen precursor and the TRA themselves, either of which can be used as an agent for treating the cancer for which the antigen is a “marker”, as well as in various diagnostic and surveillance approaches to oncology, discussed infra. It is known, for example, that tum− cells can be used to generate CTLs which lyse cells presenting different tum− antigens as well as tum+ cells. See, e.g., Maryanski et al., Eur. J. Immunol 12: 401 (1982); and Van den Eynde et al., Modern Trends in Leukemia IX (June 1990), the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference. The tumor rejection antigen precursor may be expressed in cells transfected by the gene, and then used to generate an immune response against a tumor of interest.
In the parallel case of human neoplasms, it has been observed that autologous mixed lymphocyte-tumor cell cultures (“MLTC” hereafter) frequently generate responder lymphocytes which lyse autologous tumor cells and do not lyse natural killer targets, autologous EBV-transformed B cells, or autologous fibroblasts (see Anichini et al., Immunol. Today 8: 385-389 (1987)). This response has been particularly well studied for melanomas, and MLTC have been carried out either with peripheral blood cells or with tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. Examples of the literature in this area including Knuth et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 2804-2802 (1984); Mukherji et al., J. Exp. Med. 158: 240 (1983); Hérin et all, Int. J. Canc. 39: 390-396 (1987); Topalian et al, J. Clin. Oncol 6: 839-853 (1988). Stable cytotoxic T cell clones (“CTLs” hereafter) have been derived from MLTC responder cells, and these clones are specific for the tumor cells. See Mukherji et al., supra, Hérin et all, supra, Knuth et al., supra. The antigens recognized on tumor cells by these autologous CTLs do not appear to represent a cultural artifact, since they are found on fresh tumor cells. Topalian et al., supra; Degiovanni et al., Eur. J. Immunol. 20: 1865-1868 (1990). These observations, coupled with the techniques used herein to isolate the genes for specific murine tumor rejection antigen precursors, have led to the isolation of nucleic acid sequences coding for tumor rejection antigen precursors of TRAs presented on human tumors. It is now possible to isolate the nucleic acid sequences which code for tumor rejection antigen precursors, including, but not being limited to those most characteristic of a particular tumor, with ramifications that are described infra.
Additional work has focused upon the presentation of TRAs by the class of molecules known as human leukocyte antigens, or “HLAs”. This work has resulted in several unexpected discoveries regarding the field. Specifically in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 938,334, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference, nonapeptides are taught which are presented by the HLA-A1 molecule. The reference teaches that given the known specificity of particular peptides for particular HLA molecules, one should expect a particular peptide to bind one HLA molecule, but not others. This is important, because different individuals possess different HLA phenotypes. As a result, while identification of a particular peptide as being a partner for a specific HLA molecule has diagnostic and therapeutic ramifications, these are only relevant for individuals with that particular HLA phenotype. There is a need for further work in the area, because cellular abnormalities are not restricted to one particular HLA phenotype, and targeted therapy requires some knowledge of the phenotype of the abnormal cells at issue.
In U.S. patent application Ser. No. 008,446, filed Jan. 22, 1993 and incorporated by reference, the fact that the MAGE-1 expression product is processed to a second TRA is disclosed. This second TRA is presented by HLA-C10-molecules. The disclosure shows that a given TRAP can yield a plurality of TRAs.
In U.S. patent application Ser. No. 994,928, filed Dec. 22, 1992, and incorporated by reference herein, tyrosinase is described as a tumor rejection antigen precursor. This reference discloses that a molecule which is produced by some normal cells (e.g., melanocytes), is processed in tumor cells to yield a tumor rejection antigen that is presented by HLA-A2 molecules.
It was mentioned, supra, that different individuals possess different HLA types. It has also been found that the expression of particular MAGE genes is not always linked to particular disorders, or individuals of particular HLA types. Thus, one cannot state, e.g., that all melanoma patients will express MAGE-1 TRAP nor could one say categorically that MAGE-1 expression is limited to melanoma patients of type HLA-A1. Further, one cannot state that only one type of TRAP is expressed in individuals of a particular HLA type. No rules or guidelines can be pointed to which correlate any of these factors.
Thus, it is not expected that a second TRAP is processed to a TRAP which is presented by HLA-A1 molecules. It has now been found that in addition to MAGE-1, a TRA derived from MAGE-3 TRAP is presented by HLA-A1 molecules. This is shown in examples 37-40, which follow, together with a discussion of the ramifications of this discovery.
These and various other aspects of the invention are elaborated upon in the disclosure which follows.